On Mon, Oct 21, 2019 at 05:06:20PM +0100, Richard Earnshaw (lists) wrote:
> On 21/10/2019 16:46, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> >>>There also is the insn_cost hook, which especially for RISC-like targets
> >>>is a lot easier to define.
> >>
> >>Easier, but not a complete replacement for rtx_costs, so
On 21/10/2019 16:46, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
On Mon, Oct 21, 2019 at 03:46:53PM +0100, Richard Earnshaw (lists) wrote:
On 19/10/2019 14:00, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
On Fri, Oct 18, 2019 at 08:48:40PM +0100, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
The cost routine for Arm and Thumb2 was not recognising the
On Mon, Oct 21, 2019 at 03:46:53PM +0100, Richard Earnshaw (lists) wrote:
> On 19/10/2019 14:00, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> >On Fri, Oct 18, 2019 at 08:48:40PM +0100, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
> >>
> >>The cost routine for Arm and Thumb2 was not recognising the idioms that
> >>describe the addition
On 19/10/2019 14:00, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
On Fri, Oct 18, 2019 at 08:48:40PM +0100, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
The cost routine for Arm and Thumb2 was not recognising the idioms that
describe the addition with carry, this results in the instructions
appearing more expensive than they really a
On Fri, Oct 18, 2019 at 08:48:40PM +0100, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
>
> The cost routine for Arm and Thumb2 was not recognising the idioms that
> describe the addition with carry, this results in the instructions
> appearing more expensive than they really are, which occasionally can lead
> to poor
The cost routine for Arm and Thumb2 was not recognising the idioms that
describe the addition with carry, this results in the instructions
appearing more expensive than they really are, which occasionally can lead
to poor choices by combine. Recognising all the possible variants is
a little trick
